BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN AMERICA

BRINGS TOGETHER THE ISSUE’S MANY SIDES... AND FINDS COMMON GROUND ON THE LATEST FRED FRIENDLY SEMINAR

by Dan Sanders

Ward Connerly, who generaled the passage of Proposition 209, the wildly controversial California initiative ending race-based choices in education and elsewhere; Christopher Edley, advisor to President Clinton on the Race Initiative; Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), a leading immigrant-rights group; Frank D. Riggs, Republican Congressman from 209's California; Diane Chin, Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action; Ann Lewis, White House Communications Director; and seven others seek ways to aid the underclass in a country wary of race as a factor —

To proponents of affirmative action, the recent passage of Proposition 209 in California must have felt like the first shot in a war declared on them. Emboldened by its broad support and landslide passage, many other states are placing similar measures on their ballots. Their language is simple, stark and absolute: race shall not be a factor in deciding who is admitted to a state university, granted a government contract, or hired at public expense. Early court challenges have upheld these measures, forcing Americans to contemplate a post-affirmative-action nation. Yet if traditionally impeded peoples in our society can no longer be aided by policies using racial factoring, how will we better their lot?

At the heart of the affirmative action controversy is a bitterly disputed, chicken-or-egg quandary: discrimination and "special treatment" -- which leads to which? Does an African American student from a poor neighborhood have a superior moral right to an education? Or does such "labeling" lead to modern phenomena like student housing implicitly intended for a specific minority, and separate graduation ceremonies for them? Will this, in turn, lead to a Balkanization effect in the society they enter after they leave school? To its foes, affirmative action is itself discrimination; it assumes inherent advantages of some ethnic groups and the disadvantages of others, ignoring recent phenomena like the burgeoning black middle class.

The many facets of this issue are examined in BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN AMERICA, the latest of the prestigious Fred Friendly Seminars. Airing at 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 23, 1999 on PBS (check local listings), Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School moderates a highly diverse, acclaimed panel that seeks both answers and commonality within this deeply complex, controversial topic.

By use of the Fred Friendly Seminars’ trademark hypothetical situations and role-playing within a format of Socratic dialogue, Ogletree marshals the panel through an imaginary scenario demanding real-world answers. In the fictitious state of Westrailia, it is the day when Big State University sends out its coveted acceptance letters. In search of a freshman class mirroring the diverse class and ethnic makeup of the state, the university strives to attract new students from across the spectrum. One "plus factor" in admissions, however, sparks fear and resentment like no other — the applicant’s race. A minority student gains admission over a white student with a better academic record. The latter feels betrayed, her parents heartbroken. On the first day of orientation, freshmen are greeted by the girl’s parents — gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would bar race-based preferences in government transactions.

In the first of BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE’s seven segments, panelists examine the Big State admissions policy. Who gets in, who doesn’t, and why? Ruth Simmons, President of Smith College, supports the use of a racial ‘plus factor.’ To her, it’s no different than the special consideration given artists and athletes. Ward Connerly, the University of California regent behind the real-world passage of Proposition 209, sees it very differently. "You’re going to have some consequences to live with. There’s going to be some resentment. It means that they’ve tagged you." Leaders such as Connerly believe such policies foster unpleasant assumptions: people might encounter an African American in a position of prestige and immediately conclude they’re the benefit of a political hire.

For those denied Big State’s gateway to prosperity, race is suddenly an engine of denial, a deciding factor in their failure. It is not an easy way to lose out, and the program’s second segment focuses on those left behind. Lawyer and author Ann Coulter voices their anguish, saying of a friend who was admitted: "Now, for the first time, I don’t think of her as a Democrat, a tennis player, my friend. I think of her as a black female, and I think of myself as a white female." What differentiates race from other "plus factors" like a family history at the university? Even affirmative action supporter Christopher Edley, a policy advisor to President Clinton, cautions, "Race is different, there are moral costs involved in making decisions about people . . . we should use it very carefully." Big State can use any policy to shuffle its admissions deck, but in the end someone will always be on the outside looking in.

What of their parents, who did the right things and have nothing to show for it? In the Fred Friendly Seminars scenario, they are there on the first day of school at Big State as well — gathering signatures for a "Proposition 222," a ballot measure that will make racial admission factors illegal in Westrailia’s institutions. "I’ve watched the poisonous effect that racial preferences are having on race relations on campus," claims Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Ann Lewis, Director of Communications at the White House, dissents: "Are you prepared to say that you would live in a community in which most of the residents would be of one race and the police force would be entirely another? We don’t want to go backward." To many supporters of such initiatives, the opposition is patronizing when they dismiss the electorate as a flock of sheep easily led.

Ballot measures like California’s 209 have enjoyed considerable minority support. Robert Woodson, president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprises, explains: "I think race is being used against the interests of poor blacks," and urges others to "shift the emphasis from race into competence." He finds a shred of empathy from Suzan Shown Harjo, head of a Native American organization called the Morning Star Institute, but she cautions, "Any discussion of race without a discussion of economics is just noise in America."

While "Proposition 222" takes aim only at race-based policy in government, its implications to private business are substantial. Assuming the role of CEO of "Monolith Electronics" -- a major employer in Westrailia -- is John R. Strangfeld, who holds its real-world equivalent with Prudential Global Asset Management. His "daughter," Ann Coulter, corners him point-blank: "Why is your generation still in favor of discrimination?" "Whether it’s an academic environment or the workplace, it’s not only fair, it’s commercially beneficial to have a high level of diversity; it’s more reflective of the market’s you’re serving," claims Strangfeld. Christopher Edley of Harvard Law, posing as Monolith’s counsel, adds a chilling consideration: "If you want to avoid a workforce that looks like it’s ready to be sued for employment discrimination, you’ve got to think about a policy that’s going to get people to tilt against that simple human tendency to prefer people who are like themselves."

Yet in the Westrailian world of the Fred Friendly Seminars, "Proposition 222" does pass. Diane Chin, Executive Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, cites California’s drop in minority admissions and hiring in the wake of 209. However, Ward Connerly, the initiative’s pilot, actually cites public support for affirmative action — as long as it targets something besides race. Looming over any such measure, of course, is its constitutionality. Judges like Jon O. Newman of the United States Court of Appeals often face the unsavory prospect of subverting the popular will, but reminds the audience that the Constitution "Is a protection of minority rights against the will of the majority." If "222" is upheld, affirmative action is endangered — but only, perhaps, as we now know it. Even Connerly supports "outreach" programs that give consideration to individuals from difficult backgrounds, regardless of their color.

BEYOND BLACK AND WHITE’s final segment examines the hypothetical aftermath of "Proposition 222." If California is any indication, overall diversity on campuses will actually increase due to higher Asian enrollment. But black and Latino admissions are reduced by half. Tamar Jacoby finds an upside even in this: "Fewer African American students drop out now . . . a lot of kids came who really weren’t prepared to do the work there, through no fault of their own." The future might lie in the experience of U.S. Army Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton, who later headed the public schools in Washington, D.C. "We did not, in the Army, lower standards; we brought out people up to the level that they could meet the minimum standards, and today we are the most diverse force in the world." It is Ward Connerly -- the man many blame for the demise of affirmative action -- who, of all people, comes to its defense: "We have a lot more in common than I thought. This is a very nuanced issue . . . We probably disagree more about timing than we do about the ultimate goal . . . If they laid out the process I think they might find that those of us who are pushing "222" might be willing to come to the table and say, ‘all right, we can’t do this cold turkey, but let’s find some way to get where we want to go by a certain date.’" His adversary, Christopher Edley, makes an equally startling concession: "I don’t think that people who oppose affirmative action are racists trying to oppress all minorities . . . The whole issue is, what does one mean by discrimination? How do we define it? What I would like to see in this debate is much more of an effort on all sides to search for the kernel of truth in what the other side is saying . . . I’m willing to do that, but I want to insist that the other side do the same towards me."

THE BACKGROUND OF FRED FRIENDLY SEMINARS